Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ranjit Singh vs M. Raju on 4 February, 2025
S. No. 04
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No. :- CPOWP No. 120/2018
Ranjit Singh .....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Arjun Singh Pathania, Advocate.
Vs.
M. Raju, Pr. Commissioner Sect. Dept. and Ors ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Aparna Gupta, Advocate vice
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
04.02.2025
1. The instant contempt petition has been preferred for
initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for not
implementing the order/judgment dated 29.01.2018 passed by this
Court in OWP No. 112/2018, which writ petition was disposed of with
a direction to the respondent No. 3-Chief Engineer, PHE, Irrigation
and Flood Control, Jammu to decide the claim of the petitioner by a
speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of the order passed on the said date by holding that
the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of
the petitioner.
2. Since the aforesaid order was not complied within the
period prescribed by the Court, the instant contempt petition has
been preferred, in which various compliance reports/statement of
facts have been filed from time to time and the latest has been filed
on behalf of the respondents on 31.01.2025. Copy of the same has
been provided to this Court, which has been taken on record.
3. A bare perusal of the aforesaid compliance report reveals
that after due consideration of the agreement, the total work done
amount is ₹15,12,816/-, out of which material to the tune of
₹6,96,800/- stands issued to the petitioner and CC 1st to the tune of
₹3,42,477/- has already been paid to the petitioner and the
respondents have admitted the balance amount to the tune of to the
tune of ₹3,73000/- was due to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the
case of the petitioner was thoroughly examined in light of the Finance
Department Circular No. A/40(2017)-492 dated 26.04.2021, coupled
with the Government Order No. 1137-JK(GAD) of 2021 dated
27.10.2021 issued by the General Administration Department and
Communication dated 01.09.2023 issued by the Director Finance Jal
Shakti Department to settle the claim of the delayed payment to the
contractor. The proposal was approved by the Higher Authorities and
funds to the tune of ₹4,73000/- were released to clear the liability of
the petitioner and, accordingly, due payment of ₹4,73000/- was
released to the petitioner and credited into his Account, i.e., J&K
Bank Canal Road, Jammu. As per the respondents, there is nothing
outstanding with them and the order/judgment passed by this Court
stands complied with.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Although the respondents have taken a specific stand in
the fresh compliance report that there is nothing outstanding against
the petitioner and the order/judgment dated 29.01.2018 stands
complied with, yet the same is not a total compliance of the said
order/judgment, whereby the respondents were directed to decide the
claim of the petitioner by passing a speaking order, which till date,
has not been passed and nor the same has been placed on record by
filing the aforesaid compliance report.
6. Confronted with the same, learned counsel for the
respondents seeks one week's time to place on record the detailed
speaking order strictly in tune with the order/judgment dated
29.01.2018, with copy in advance to the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
7. List again on 18.02.2025.
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)
Judge
JAMMU
04.02.2025
Ram Krishan
